In a democracy, do we deserve the leaders we elect?

First off, who is "we"? As I have little in common with the random strangers around me and even little political agreement with my own friends. Who is this we stuff?

Let us examine the myth of American democracy and the dangers of the First-past-the-post system, let us finally educate this gigantic mass of sheeple and enlighten them on the mediocre and brainwashed nature of their existence.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Let us examine the myth of American democracy and the dangers of the First-past-the-post system, let us finally educate this gigantic mass of sheeple and enlighten them on the mediocre and brainwashed nature of their existence.

That ain't gonna happen, so we might as well move on to step two. And you still haven't explained what that has to do with a voting dystem.

Click to expand...

The only reason it wont happen is because naysayers like you keep saying it wont.

Second who do you think are the brains who thought first-past-the-post was a good idea in the first place. Greedy people who wanted to enslave humanity and the stupid sheeple who are too dumb to do anything about it. Both need an upgrade to their brains.

Second who do you think are the brains who thought first-past-the-post was a good idea in the first place. Greedy people who wanted to enslave humanity and the stupid sheeple who are too dumb to do anything about it. Both need an upgrade to their brains.

Click to expand...

Better check your history instead of just making stuff up. First-past-the-post is the simplest method. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with greed or slavery or stupidity. And it works about as well as the so-called improvements. If you have a better plan, feel free to enlighten those of us who aren't as smart as you.

Better check your history instead of just making stuff up. First-past-the-post is the simplest method. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with greed or slavery or stupidity. And it works about as well as the so-called improvements. If you have a better plan, feel free to enlighten those of us who aren't as smart as you.

Click to expand...

Simple is not always better.

And no it does not work as well as the improvements.

Also, new methods have to come to me, do you know Einstein took 10 years to formulate his theories? Can't just demand it and rush it.

Also if you really trust aristocracy you are naive. It's all about money, land ownership, and control.

First off, who is "we"? As I have little in common with the random strangers around me and even little political agreement with my own friends. Who is this we stuff?

Let us examine the myth of American democracy and the dangers of the First-past-the-post system, let us finally educate this gigantic mass of sheeple and enlighten them on the mediocre and brainwashed nature of their existence.

Click to expand...

There is nothing new here. No one (other than in this video) calls it "first past the post" but maybe that is a common phase in the UK. There are many systems and that, in Political Science, is what is studied in Comparative Politics (systems of various countries compared to each other).

It's rarely the system that makes the difference. It's how a system is implemented. The problem with the system in the U.S. is predominately the extent to which "big money" is allowed to influence things.

Our system is pretty representative but it's representative of the lobbyists and not of the people. Take the money and the incentives that go along with that out of the system and it will be more representative of the people.

Trump is an anomaly. The biggest breakdown in our system under Trump isn't that Trump got elected (he was the candidate of the "frustrated"). If the system was working correctly, he should have been rendered largely ineffective by Congress, by the laws, and by the Supreme Court.

The Republicans in Congress have largely showed themselves to be cowards. The mid-term elections could change all that or the "frustrated" could still have their way for another election or two.

Our system is pretty representative but it's representative of the lobbyists and not of the people. Take the money and the incentives that go along with that out of the system and it will be more representative of the people.

Click to expand...

Dunno, you just made me realize over 83% of America is religious, so I've just kind of decided just handing power to the majority is kind of a bad idea.

It's actually a great topic and worthy of serious consideration .IMO.
Democracy, to me, only functions properly when all members of the community actively participate in the election process.
Societal membership should come with a cost. MUST vote, MUST pay taxes, MUST have collective health as a priority.

Dunno, you just made me realize over 83% of America is religious, so I've just kind of decided just handing power to the majority is kind of a bad idea.

Click to expand...

and that's the rub, the down side for those who have personal vested interests that are more important that the health of the collective.

Why do you feel a religious person has less right to his vote than say an atheist?

Perhaps democracy means that the outcome is always the one the collective vote decides it to be....(whether you like it or not)
As to getting what you deserve... hmmm... that's another issue. One that is often determined by voter complacency and lack of interest of democratic outcomes.

When you only have about 40% voting (midterms) you can expect poor leadership...

Gamelord, the U.S. system is certainly messy and some say "but there is no better system". Whether that's true or not, it can work fairly well. Not all parts of the country are the same.

I live in Seattle, Trump has little effect on local life. Government works here about as well (locally) as it can. Seattle is liberal but most of the rest of the state is moderate (conservative). There are churches in Seattle but most people aren't particularly religious and the ones who are aren't of the variety that you see in much of the rest of the country. Much of the West (conservative or liberal) isn't nearly as religious as the rest of the country.

Everyone isn't wealthy here either but compared to the country as a whole, the system is working well enough here.

Other than big money in politics the other issue effecting the country is that it's not a very homogenized country. Diversity is good, change is good, but in politics too much economic and educational variety in one district isn't likely to be good as the interests of the people are too different.

It's better for a poor distinct to be poor (except as it affects the school districts) in some ways in that their representative will be representing poor interests. Gerrymandering causes those interests to be underrepresented when you have wealthier and poorer citizens in one district.

Regarding your comments regarding liberals. I'm not sure why you are so down on liberals as they would tend to reflect many of your view of society (as well as any group is going to reflect your views)? Liberals do tend to forget where money is coming from sometimes and will attempting to represent the poor can end up overtaxing the poor.

The electric rates in Seattle went up a lot several years ago and they just OK'd another rate increase along with the continually increasing property taxes. No group is perfect and both parties benefit from being out of power from time to time but overall I don't get your knock on liberals unless it's totally based on your not getting laid.